July 30, 2010

"... and this is because when you kick your husband out, you've got to have big brother government to be your provider."
Said Phyllis Schlafly, who meant to say that: "Yes, I said that. It's true, too. All welfare goes to unmarried moms."

194 comments:

Basically true, innit? A woman with kids and without a husband is going to be significantly more likely to be supported by the government than other groups. And folks who depend financially on big government are going to vote for the bigger government party.

I got as far as moving my cursor over the link and I saw that the link was from Talking Points Memo and titled “Dems call on GOP to denounce . . “ and that’s about as far as I got before deciding it wasn’t worth reading.

IMO this post deserves the “lameness” tag as calling on someone to denounce what someone else may have said is about the lamest political stunt today with demanding that someone apologize for “offending” you being a close second.

One of the worst kept secrets of the welfare state. This is why, 40 years ago, the Lefties were all for Do Your Own Thing and A Woman's Right To Orgasm and Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out. Stuff like that always ends up on the welfare line

John A said...

I have never quite understood how she got tagged "feminist" when "misogynist" (or perhaps "misanthrope") seems more apt.

The reaction here is perfect proof of the charges. The Big Brother Government which freely gives out money to its women as entitlements owed to the American Citizenship Family is irate at any attack on a family member.

There's quite a bit of research out there on voter demographics, so the 70% claim should be easy to prove or disprove, and it's probably true. The other problem with the Dem strategy of denouncing Schlafly is that I'd almost bet my life Republicans can find video of plenty of Democrats saying, well, exactly the same thing, albeit in a less inflammatory manner.

It's an attack on traditional marraige - don't you see that? It will be the downfall of not just America - but the entire world.

Women must be forced, by law, to marry - and never allowed to divorce. Society is doomed otherwise.

It's the cynical exploitation of under-educated underclass women by the Leftist establishment to keep them in poverty by chaining them to a welfare state that gives them only enough to produce the next generation of the underclass.

My mom says the same thing and she's about as wishy-washy a conservative as a person can be without being outright liberal herself.

She's said it right out, clear as that.

But it's the truth that can't be spoken, eh? This notion that, as lyssa said, the women who think they can do it all without a man still want to be taken care of by someone.

But it's important to pretend this isn't true.

And really, sunsong, how is it different in terms of liberty to be forced to marry for support or to be compelled to live in a society where government takes that controlling and providing role? You still don't get a choice and you still are under the thumb of the person paying the bills.

The only thing I have a big issue with is the assumption that family breakup is a unilateral decision on the part of women. Surely, part of the reason why the IRS keeps pressing me into service as surrogate husband and surrogate dad is that those social changes so heretically disliked by Schlafly have made actual husbands and dads a lot less dependable than they used to be.

I've always been amazed that Phyllis Schafly is one of the few women who's never needed a man to support her -- she can actually compete with men on their own level. I mean, honest to God, you'd think you were dealing with a guy. How does that even happen?

Politically, I think we're only allowed to worship the much put upon single mother.

If you want to bash someone, you can bash the dads. Dads are never referred to as "single dads". Dads beat their wives, and that's why there are so many single mothers. Dads also rape their daughters, and that's why you can't have parental notification laws for abortion.

Phyllis is also doing a little Alinskyite demonizing, since single men also voted for Obama, 63-37. Married women and men both voted for the grownups. And she had the single women figure kind of high. Gallup had it at 66-34.

Then again, she's usually full of shiat. wv: mershf, what she'd sound like if you sat on the old windbag.

I am not saying I agree with this, but it is interesting to note that in Europe, where supposedly the welfare state takes care of everyone, child birth and marriage is down, down, down. It was always a puzzle to me, since if you have this great backstop, wouldn't you expect to have more kids?

Perhaps instead, they have that great backstop because women vote for it?

Schlafly spoke at the University of Tulsa law schol one evening about 30 years ago. She was all worked up over the Equal Rights Amendment and how it would turn restrooms into "uni-sex" lavoratories. One wag stood up and asked her how she came to Tulsa and how was the trip.

Caught unawares, she replied to the effect of a long delay on the runway in NY or somewhere and then 4 hours in the air. .. He then asked her if she pee'd in a cup at her seat or in the unisex toilet.

I've never forgotten her appearance and I'm still looking for the guy who asked her that to thank him.

I had a female cousin (really my mom's cousin) whose first marriage had broken down (her ex-husband beat up her and the kids) and she used to say the same thing all the time. Though frankly, in much nastier terms (I am from an Italian-American family -- bluntness is a virtue).

I am not one ot get hot and bothered by social issues. But i wonder if Orwell was prophetic on this point. In 1984, the government tries to abolish the orgasm and move reproduction to articifical insemination. Why? Because sex and family causes you to be loyal to something other than the state. If you can take the joy out of sex, and no longer need it for reproduction, then the state has one less rival for its affections.

Obviously, we have gone the other way, in that sex is considered recreation, though we have retreated from the excesses of the 1960s. And I do not think there is any master plan to destroy the family unit (one reason I support gay marriage is that it will strengthen the role of family units).

But I wonder if the result is the same. With families breaking down, the state has lost a rival for its affections. And often time single mothers end up to a greater or lesser extent as wards of the state.

It's true. Women naturally gravitate to the state as a source of security at the expense of liberty. Of course we're talking of overlapping bell curves, so the liberty loving female commenters here an elsewhere may not be included. It also explains the left's agenda to neuter-feminize males as well.

It's the cynical exploitation of under-educated underclass women by the Leftist establishment to keep them in poverty by chaining them to a welfare state that gives them only enough to produce the next generation of the underclass.

As I say, the Lefties hate the truth.

That's right - keep those women barefoot and pregnant - submissive and subservient. That's what the far right offers.

Good grief - can't you see that the far right and the far left are both too extreme and therefore not helpful?

You are both obssessed with top-down, one-size-fits-all Nanny State control of *the people*. Neither one of you has any respect for indivuals that I can see. You each offer your own form of tyranny - and call it truth.

I think both of you - the far right and the far left ought to condemned to living togther on am island somehwere.

"I've always been amazed that Phyllis Schafly is one of the few women who's never needed a man to support her -- she can actually compete with men on their own level. I mean, honest to God, you'd think you were dealing with a guy. How does that even happen?"

Haha... anyhow. Not so far from the truth is it? I don't doubt at all that Schafly benefited from family support, but that's the way it should be. And she's certainly made a career for herself, no matter what one thinks of her or the ideas she pushes.

But we're supposed to be interdependent. We're supposed to have support structures built with other people, friends and certainly family. We're supposed to take care of each other and support each other.

It's not just this idea of the single woman looking to the state for support and favoring policies that set the state up to take care of her and her children instead of a spouse, but the way we've shifted responsibility from family to the state for parents and children and grandparents as well.

Certainly I've said many times that I support gay marriage because marriage is the basic unit of social welfare. It lays an obligation of care on the spouse and creates a legal unit defining who has to pay the bills.

Heterosexual marriage does this as well, of course, children or not.

And the idea that this is *horrible*, as sunsong seems to be implying, is a sad thing. It's a different thing than enabling people to flee abusive situations.

Those always on about marriage, even if they don't express themselves well all that often, do understand that its important that we support the responsibility of family, the responsibility of men to take care of their children, and the responsibility of women to take care of their children and both spouses to take care of each other and then *maybe* we can get back to adult children taking care of aging parents or siblings and the responsibilities of extended families.

But what we've got now is ever greater dependence on the State and ever mushier notions of responsibility of individuals.

This isn't, BTW, a far right conservative notion... it's libertarian, essentially. We ask the state to care for us and we lose liberty. It can't be different than that. One thing demands the other.

I've always been amazed that Phyllis Schafly is one of the few women who's never needed a man to support her -- she can actually compete with men on their own level. I mean, honest to God, you'd think you were dealing with a guy. How does that even happen?

"She began college early and worked as a model for a time. She earned her A.B. Phi Beta Kappa from Washington University, in St. Louis, in 1944, at age 19. She received a Master of Arts degree, in Government, from Radcliffe College, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1945. In one of her books, Strike From Space (1965), Schlafly notes that during WWII she worked briefly as "a ballistics gunner and technician at the largest ammunition plant in the world." In 1978, she earned a J.D. from Washington University Law School in St. Louis."

I would suggest, that the answer is that she is exceptional by almost any standards.

He then asked her if she pee'd in a cup at her seat or in the unisex toilet.

I guess that guy forgot that airport restrooms are singles, as are many unisex bathrooms out in the world. I think most people's objections to mixed bathrooms begins and ends with multiple stall restrooms that share a private washing area.

I do think that Schlafly does over state her point here. The young, in general, voted for Obama, and the young, in much greater numbers, were single.

I surmise that it was an idealism sort of thing. Maybe not so much that he is black, but rather his hopey Changey message, talking about transformation, etc. And, the young are invariably more idealistic.

And, that in a nutshell is why socialism is of interest to them and (I suspect) to him. It is the hope of man overcoming his very nature over the reality that he is flawed. The reality is that man is selfish, and for that reason, socialism is always destined for failure.

You can tell a young person that, but with the idealism of youth, they aren't going to believe you, until age and experience teaches them this reality. And that is when they become conservatives.

So now we can unmarried women to the list of Americans that the Republican party hates on:

American hated on by Republicans* Democrats* Trade unionist* Environmentalists* Feminists* Immigrants* Liberals* People Who Live In Big cities (Chicago, New York, New Orleans, etc)* People Who Live In Massachusetts* Poor people* Unemployed people* 9/11 Heroes and Widows* African Americans and civil rights leaders* Unmarried women

Let me suggest however to the party of interest here that this sort of thing just lowers the respect that many of those on the other end of the political spectrum have of him and those of his political beliefs.

She was on a plane on the tarmac for a while and in the air and planes, as you know, don't have m/f but unisex bathrooms and it might not be pleasant for females as men are generally not good shots they are, in the end, unisex and her use of the example while riding in a public convenience that gets along fairly well with it seemed to be out of touch...

Jesus, I actually make the rare inflammatory, outraged comment (1:16), and really, really mean it this time, and even include profanity, but Alpha Lib has to show up and try to divert all the attention.

Gee, does anyone think Schlafly will sue TPM (a la Sherrod/Breitbart) for slandering her by presenting highly edited portions of her speech and calling her a liar?

Anyone think there'll at least be an equivalent amount of time tut-tutting and hand-wringing by the major networks and leftist bloggers over how deceptive and dishonest TPM for posting this blog entry without checking all the facts?

Is anyone expecting pronouncements by the usual leftist shills/mobies/sockpuppets that TPM has lost their credibility forever because of their utter wrongness in this instance?

No?

Me neither.

Does anyone think the usual suspects like AlphaLiberal will just move on to the next pile of bullshit and start shoveling at full speed?

shoutingthomas, have your tried making a point in a discussion without hurtling insults? Give it a shot!

Now are you telling us that the Eagle Forum is not a Republican outfit, that Phyllis Schlafly is not Republican? That all these commenters backing up Schlafly's misogynistic comments are not Republican or R-leaning?

Where is the Republican Party statement distancing them from these comments? Got a link?

Deprivation of parental support is a condition of eligibility for a child to receive AFDC. Deprivation may be due to continued absence, death, incapacity, or unemployment of a parent. ...Almost 3 in 5 recipient children were the children of unmarried parents, while 1 in 4 were the children of divorced and separated parents.

...

Nearly all of the AFDC adult recipients were the parents of the recipient children.

So over 80% of recipients have a parent missing due to never having been married or being divorced? The 1996 stats seem to be in Schlafly's favor. Are there more recent statistics? Do they tell a different story?

AC245, check out the article, as I did last night before posting on it, and you will see this:

In an interview with TPM this afternoon Schlafly stood by her comments and said Obama is trying to boost welfare rolls to help with his reelection and to help Democrats.

"Yes I said that. It's true, too. All welfare goes to unmarried moms," Schlafly told TPM. "They are trying to line up their constituency for Obama and Democrats against Republican candidates."----------------------------

Shoutingthomas, you have been reduced to sputtering insults. I get it: a) you disagree with me, b) you lack the intelligence to make a coherent argument on the issues at hand, c) somehow, you miss the point that these failings are all yours.

Now are you telling us that the Eagle Forum is not a Republican outfit, that Phyllis Schlafly is not Republican? That all these commenters backing up Schlafly's misogynistic comments are not Republican or R-leaning?

No, idiot, the Eagle Forum is not a Republican outfit. It's Schlafly's own forum.

If I were to guess who Schlafly votes for, I'd guess she is more likely to vote Republican.

But, she is not an official or candidate of the Republican Party.

But, you are a liar and an asshole not-Alpha.

And, you are too damned stupid to post on this site.

This tactic you employ, in fact the only tactic you employ, which is to try to attribute everything you dislike to the Republican Party is an idiot tactic on this site.

There is a bias feeding this apparent political split between married and unmarried women (and women with and without children).

Voters who are married -- and voters who have children -- also tend to be older.

Older voter have had more time to get married (and, yes, get divorced). They have also had more time to have children (which tend never to go away). And older voters tended to swing their votes towards McCain, or at least not as strongly towards Obama.

Of course, one could say that the relative conservatism of older voters is related to or a product of their family status.

But to check that correlation between marriage/children and voting, you would need to check the figures within age groups.

Alpha: But if you believe in freedom, why do you care if they marry or chose to be singled. How is it possibly any of your business?

Like I said, they should prove that it's not my business by not demanding that I pay for it. As long as the gov't taking the money to cover their needs, from the money I earn through my labor, under threat of violence, it's damn well my business.

Now, AL, tell me honestly. Could you really not figure that out on your own? Do you really think that we're going to buy that it's none of our business when they force us to pay for it? Really?

(Also, as stated in my "grr" response, my inflammatory comment that I was annoyed at being missed was at 1:16, to Sunsong. Read a little more carefully, AL.)

TANF does it statistics in what I think is a strange way, separating out the children from the adults instead of just giving household statistics. (Or maybe I'm reading it wrong.) But regardless, about 85% of adult recipients are unmarried, divorced, or separated. That's from 2008. Schlafly still, by this, appears to be describing the situation accurately at least in part.

In the space of six years, the liberal DEM governor of Pennsylvania increased spending on free daycare from ZERO to more than one-half a billion dollars. That means, for this new welfare program alone, the state grew its spending per household by almost $100 per year forever.

"So now we can unmarried women to the list of Americans that the Republican party hates on:

American hated on by Republicans.... etc..."

Oh, this is bull shit Alpha.

You can pretend the philosophical difference begins at the point of "caring" but it doesn't make it true.

The philosophical difference begins at a point where it becomes possible for you to even make that list. A list, not of people, but of interest groups. Question that first, or at least understand that what you take for granted is what other people reject.

You don't have to agree with Schlafly or with anyone else to recognize that the difference in outlook is based on assumptions about how the world works and not at all on "hating" on someone or even hating on amorphous non-personal group constructs. But you chose not to, and I'm convinced that you chose not to in a most deliberate way, which makes your arguments essentially dishonest.

And how well did that work for them last time a Dem political functionary demanded denouncements or else, hm?

Schlafly represents herself, as she's done for her whole life. Sometimes she says something that a person agrees with and sometimes she says something you disagree with. She's her own person.

Also... it would be a political mistake to back-up on pointing out the truth of a feminist movement that wants to replace domestic cooperation and codependency with dependency on the state and call it liberation.

"And talk about world view! If a woman doesn't have a man, conservatives describe here as likely to be lazy and on the dole."

Only if you assume that anyone in a "group" is representative of everyone in that "group." Which you seem to do.

"No talk about persistent wage inequities, glass ceilings or any other real world problems faced by real women. And THAT, in itself is another huge factor driving people away from Republicans."

What? Pointing out that wage inequities are clearly related to elements other than discrimination and that the "glass ceilings" are more often made of theatrical sugar these days. Of course it drives people away from Republicans when the fantasy of oppression isn't respected.

But if what happens in life is related to your individual choices and priorities with a good deal of more or less random good or bad luck thrown in, then government "solutions" that target entire groups and attempt to fix things on a group by group basis are simply going to be whole scale money-pits.

I know which inflammatory comment you referred to. I chose to exercise my freedom to reply to a different one.

You said: "Now, AL, tell me honestly. Could you really not figure that out on your own? Do you really think that we're going to buy that it's none of our business when they force us to pay for it? Really? "

Honeslty, it blows my mind that you think single women are on the dole. What a jaundiced view of women.

I think that's an insulting comment to make, actually. It seems to come out of this cartoonish world view con's tend to espouse. Conservatives: Single women = deadbeat parasites. Great message for November!

Now, you tell me, do you support equal pay for equal work? How about the The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009?

Republicans voted on party lines against it. So, what solutions to gender-based pay inequity do the Republicans offer the working women of America?

Bruce, I'm completely serious. Republicans are constantly attacking other groups of Americans, as the short list I provided shows.

I don't hate any of those people, and I am a Republican. So, at that level, your generalization fails.

And, if you want turnaround, we know from what Rev. Wright said that Democrats hate Whites, and from what other prominent Black Democrats have said, that they especially despise Jews (but will take their campaign contributions almost every time). And, I do remember some prominent Democrat dissing our military, so they must hate them too. And, we could also probably say that Democrats are corrupt because Charlie Rangel,William Jefferson, et al. are Democrats, or that they are negligent killers, because Teddie Kennedy was a Democrat, or sexual predators because Bill Clinton (and now, apparently his VP) is a Democrat.

What you have done here is called "Argument By Generalization". Some Republican has said something negative about some group, and you generalize to "Republicans" in general. But, this is almost always a fallacious type of argument. Republicans make up a sizable chunk of the American public, and to tar them with the actions of a few through this sort of argument is not persuasive.

Phyllis Schafly attacks a whole group of Americans: single women. Conservatives here rally to her defense and describe single women as, basically, parasites.

Then you go off on this "there are no groups" nonsense. -----------------------Shlafly has put this conservative worldview on the table. It will be in front of everyone of her endorsed candidates to either reject or embrace.

Again, a generalization. And, again false. But also false because you have implicitly generalized from single mothers to single women. Big difference. Singe women who are not mothers are less likely to be parasites than their male brethren. Far fewer female slackers these days.

But to some extent, the generalization is not entirely untrue, if you change "single women" to "single mothers".

As people have repeatedly pointed out here, you have to look at why the women have kids outside of a marriage. Yes, there are widows out there. But most of the rest of the single mothers with children had at least some, and arguably most often, a lot, of culpability, for their state.

The problem is that we have made it too easy for single mothers to raise kids outside of wedlock. All, for the benefit of the children, of course. But that is arguably short sighted, because of the societal problems that result.

We have seen for several generations what happens in this sort of environment. The vast majority of our prison populations consist of people who were raised without a father in their home. And, not surprisingly, a large percentage of illegitimate births are by females in the same situation. Indeed, it has been repeatedly pointed out that one of the major causes of our problems in Black communities today is not residual racism, but rather, much more likely the subsidization of single mother families by the state, really started by LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty. These programs effectively destroyed what was left of the underclass Black family (and did the same for other groups as well).

But we may be seeing the other side of this as males, individually, are being disconnected from their responsibility to support their own children. Marriage and children, throughout the ages, has been the driving force for causing males to settle down and work hard, to do their duty to their kids.

The result is that married males, esp. with children, tend to work notably harder at their employment than other demographic groups (and this is big part of the reason for the "glass ceiling"). What we hadn't seen until recently though was the flip side of this, that males without wives and children, and, esp. when success doesn't guarantee them wives and children, are much more often these days turning into slackers.

Many guys these days seem to be discovering that it doesn't really take that much work to survive in today's America. They can often live at home (which their sisters are much more loath to do), and if they don't can live communally (again, something their sisters seem less likely to be happy with). They can work minimally, and then play maximally.

One downside to this is that economic progress is built on males working hard and taking chances. But without being rewarded for this behavior, through marriage and children, many are just opting out. And we may be seeing the results of this.

The problem here is that Schlafly, and many people on both sides, always seem to need to find some nefarious reason for voting the way they do. Like the Republican party is so great, and their ideas all correct, that one would have to either be mentally ill or have some dubious motive, in order to vote for the other side.

"You want to vote for Obama/Biden instead of McCain/Palin? You must be on welfare!"

Why would single women vote Republican? You oppose their interests constantly!

Again, a generalization.

But what you ignore is the biggest reason to vote Republican - the economy. Democrats in Congress and in the White House are very, very, bad for the economy. And, contrary to Obama's idea of spreading the wealth around, most people do better with the rising tide raising all the boats. Socialism doesn't work. Neither does Keynesian economics. Never have, and never will.

And, I should add that the rampant racism that we are seeing with the Obama Administration and its Democratic supporters hurts White and Asian women just as much, if not more, than it does their male brethren.

I always enjoy it when someone starts to talk about the "best interests" of other people.

It's in the "best interests" of men to have the state support the women they impregnate and pay for the children that result. The bachelor life doesn't need to be at all expensive... live in a cave with some other guys, work enough to get by, play hard and procreate where ever you please. Men should vote for their freedom.

Why should women vote Republican? (Or better, be libertarian/capitalist.) Because they want to retain the fruits of their labor and control their own lives. They don't want what they've earned stolen by the state to pay for the free choices made by others. They want safe streets and low crime rates. They want to define the limit of what they *can* do by what they choose to do according to the priorities they choose for themselves. Maybe they should do it because they dislike the idea of the state refusing them the tools available that compensate for smaller physical stature so that they are able to go without a male protector and protect themselves.

So, Synova, a rehash of Republican talking points. We're all in this alone, you don't owe nobody nothin, and we should ignore social problems. You forgot "yadda yadda."

This, however, is pretty special:

Maybe they should do it because they dislike the idea of the state refusing them the tools available that compensate for smaller physical stature so that they are able to go without a male protector and protect themselves.

Nah, Alpha. You're assuming I'm trying to reassure you. Considering that you purposefully misread what I wrote, I don't feel at all inclined to work for your approval.

At no point did I say we were all in this alone or ought to be. At no point. So if you're basing anything on this as some conservative creed that you must oppose then you're twisting your very own tail without any help at all.

And how you see me saying that women should be dependent on men, I have no idea. But I don't think that women being dependent on the state is an equitable trade off either. Dependency is dependency. How is it anything else?

Now, if you're also expecting me to enter into some fantasy where women are not smaller and less physically strong even than men the same height, then I'm not going to do that. I'm only just a smidge over 5 feet tall and I'm not going to buy that lie no matter how often it is told. Wishing it wasn't so hasn't made me any taller in 40 years.

Women are vulnerable, physically. Not that men aren't at all, but women on average are smaller. What has liberalism done to make women safer? Anything?

I suppose we've managed to treat men like criminals and assume them rapists and vilify the chauvinistic attitude that men might be protectors or sources of help to anyone, man-woman-or child who is in danger, and we've tried to discourage effective self-defense for those either small, like women, or handicapped by refusing people the right to be armed.

So I suppose liberal attitudes have accomplished a lot. I just don't see it as accomplishing something *for* women.

And the idea that this is *horrible*, as sunsong seems to be implying, is a sad thing. It's a different thing than enabling people to flee abusive situations.

Those always on about marriage, even if they don't express themselves well all that often, do understand that its important that we support the responsibility of family, the responsibility of men to take care of their children, and the responsibility of women to take care of their children and both spouses to take care of each other and then *maybe* we can get back to adult children taking care of aging parents or siblings and the responsibilities of extended families.

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said here, except :-)

I don’t define the terms the same. And that’s a big deal. The far right is, imo, rigid and inflexible. Only their definitions are acceptable and they want to Nanny State the rest of us, with their brand of big government and force us to live by their beliefs and their values.

And that’s immoral, imo.

One of the questions that doesn’t seem to get asked is *why*? Why are there more unmarried men and unmarried women? And, btw, from the posts of the CNN poll – it doesn’t look like Schlafly is backed up. 74% of unmarried women voted for Obama – but there is no mention of how many of them are on welfare. Did I miss that part? And additionally, 68% of unmarried men (w/kids) voted for Obama. So, to me, those seem pretty similar. Why didn’t Schlafly point that out? Do you think it is because she has an agenda?

And what of love? Children who are loved do better than children who are not. That seems to me to be much more important than the form the family takes. Are the parents lovng and responsible? Then good. And why are people having children. That interests me, too. Is it because they want to love and care for someone? Or is it because they think they should? Or because they think it is a rite of passage into adulthood. Why are people having children? Because they don’t use birth control?

I am all for more personal responsibility and more development of family. But I don’t limit family to blood relations and marriages. I like this:

The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof. - Richard Bach

I have one sister I am quite close to and one that I’m not close to. By choice. I have people in my life that I am not in any way related to that I consider family.

"Unmarried women, 70% of unmarried women, voted for Obama, and this is because when you kick your husband out, you've got to have big brother government to be your provider," said Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum and infamous for her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. - P. Schlafly

So, the answer that the far right offers is what? Get married, like it or not, right? What is wonderful about that? How about thinking outside the box and considering new ideas instead of the same old stuff?

I think kids are better off with no father than a bad father. There is a difference between form and content. Because something has the right *look*, according to Schlafly, does not mean that it *is* good. Things are not that simple. Rather than trying to force everyone to live by your values or my values – why not look at what would truly encourage more personal responsibility. In other words, instead of trying to go backward, why not start where we are and move forward toward something that works and respects all of the society – rather than just one side or the other?

I think responsibility, power and freedom are intricately and intimately linked. What you don’t *own* you can’t change. If your story line is that your mother/father/sister/brother/teacher/boss/spouse/ex-spouse/government/society/religion etc etc is responsible for how you are– you have to wait for them to fix it for you to move on. If you take responsibility – you have the power to change. And with that comes the freedom.

I am all for increased personal responsibility – and increased personal power and freedom. I am all for more and more people taking their power back from government, religion and other institutions. I may disagree with you, though, on how to do that.

Schlafly, the way I read her, is saying that unmarried women are bad and wrong. That’s the far right view. And that view is just not helpful, imo.

If I say that we are not in this alone and that we are supposed to depend on our families and on our partners and they are supposed to depend on us... then I'm promoting some bad sort of sexist dependency on men that is bad, bad, bad.

But dependency on government is the good sort of dependency? And if I'm not all for dependency on government then I'm all about how we're in this alone to sink or swim, so sad, too bad?

Help and support only counts as help and support when it's done through government? Only tax dollars makes someone a real boy? Social support structures make one a marionette, your will subverted?

I know which inflammatory comment you referred to. I chose to exercise my freedom to reply to a different one.

So, you just can't stay on one topic, then.

You said: "Now, AL, tell me honestly. Could you really not figure that out on your own? Do you really think that we're going to buy that it's none of our business when they force us to pay for it? Really? "

Honeslty, it blows my mind that you think single women are on the dole. What a jaundiced view of women.

I think that's an insulting comment to make, actually. It seems to come out of this cartoonish world view con's tend to espouse. Conservatives: Single women = deadbeat parasites. Great message for November!

Where did I ever say that "single women on the dole? Again, please try to read more carefully. I'll ask again: Do you really think that women who have children that they can't afford (which is in no way all women, as my uterus can attest) is none of my business if I have to pay for it? (If I don't have to pay for it, then yes, it is none of my business.)

Now, you tell me, do you support equal pay for equal work? How about the The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009?

Actual equal pay for equal work? Sure. Equating secretaries with oil riggers? No, and I'm insulted by it. Lilly Ledbetter? Also insulting. The statute of limitations should not be tolled indefinitely because a female employee couldn't figure out what she was worth after 30 years on the job.

Republicans voted along party lines against it.

One of the reasons that I like Republicans better than Dems is because they don't act as if I'm a stupid, incapable child just because I have a vagina.

So, what solutions to gender-based pay inequity do the Republicans offer the working women of America?

Work hard, take calculated risks, live a good life, plan, add something to society, don't do stupid things. It's pretty simple, really (unless you assume that all women are stupid incapable children, of course, like most liberals appear to).

"I don’t define the terms the same. And that’s a big deal. The far right is, imo, rigid and inflexible. Only their definitions are acceptable and they want to Nanny State the rest of us, with their brand of big government and force us to live by their beliefs and their values."

What you ought to try to be careful of, is assuming that people mean what you think they mean based on all the baggage you bring along with the usage of a particular term and then pile that baggage on them and call it theirs when it never was. Watch out for the trigger words and your own reaction.

True, Schlafly strikes me as inflexible but flexibility doesn't automatically make someone right about everything either, any more than inflexibility makes someone wrong about everything.

By no means do I think that everyone ought to get married or that a family group has to involve a marriage or blood relations. But I do think that we're meant to live cooperatively. Holding up the ability to live singly as a standard which society must support is unrealistic. It's unreasonable. More than that, when we set government up to support this unrealistic expectation we're trying to force functionality on something dysfunctional. It's not going to work, and it's not going to help, and only if we're very lucky it won't actually be harmful.

Does that mean that people ought not live singly if they can? Of course it doesn't. If that's what a person wants and they can afford it, then great. But I do mean to say that this is not a minimum standard, that few people can expect to actually raise a family without some sort of cooperative domestic arrangement.

Maybe it's hubris or something, really, another case of people trying to ape the very very rich, this notion that traditional marriage, even that with a single income earner and SAHM is a case of dependency rather than cooperation. Like Freeman said, you divvy up the responsibilities so that it all gets done.

I don’t define the terms the same. And that’s a big deal. The far right is, imo, rigid and inflexible. Only their definitions are acceptable and they want to Nanny State the rest of us, with their brand of big government and force us to live by their beliefs and their values.

I would define the nanny state differently - the state that takes a lot of my money, and gives it to someone who had sex and then children instead of working. The state that now has laws for health care that are so complex that you can't see the details of a diagram that tries to illustrate maybe 1/3 of them. A state that tells you that you can't eat at McDonald's because you might get fat. A state that wants to tax fossil fuels because the oceans may rise a couple inches in the next century (but probably won't). The state that tells you to wear a seat belt, even if you are driving 1/2 mile on back roads. The state that tells me to pay women more than they would get on the open market because they are oppressed, or something like that. The state that defines racism to be a white's only offense. And sexism to be a male only offense.

I could go on, but my point is that the general difference is that Republicans, on average, want less government, and Democrats want more government. And, I will submit that more government means more nanny state.

"Schlafly, the way I read her, is saying that unmarried women are bad and wrong. That’s the far right view. And that view is just not helpful, imo." If she is not distinguishing between single women and single mothers, I too think that she is wrong.

Holding up the ability to live singly as a standard which society must support is unrealistic.

Perhaps taking your own advice would help here. Here’s your advice:

What you ought to try to be careful of, is assuming that people mean what you think they mean based on all the baggage you bring along with the usage of a particular term and then pile that baggage on them and call it theirs when it never was. Watch out for the trigger words and your own reaction.

Isn’t this thread about Schlafly and unmarried women? Schlafly’s attack on umarried women?

I made clear that I was giving my own opinion. I didn’t say that being flexible automatically makes one right. Jeez. Nor did I say that being inflexible automatically makes one wrong. Why take things to such extreme?

What I’m saying is the far right strikes me as rigid and inflexible and I don’t think that is helpful when dealing with a society as large and complex as ours.

Schlafly’s words say to me that she thinks being unmarried is bad and wrong. I don’t think that’s helpful. Nowhere did I say that I think everyone should be unmarried!

I like the idea of people doing what suits them. Not what suits me or you :-) Do you understand what I’m saying?

And I like the idea of more and more people taking responsibility for themselves and their choices. Do you disagree with that?

Of what value is Schlafly's put down of single women? Why didn’t she put down single men who voted for Obama?

I could go on, but my point is that the general difference is that Republicans, on average, want less government, and Democrats want more government. And, I will submit that more government means more nanny state.

We disagree. I think both parties increase the size and scope of government. I voted for Bush twice. What did I get? More government, more debt, more deficit. (I also voted for McCain but I now think Obama is a better choice)

Republcans have their own ideas of what is in the state's interest and how people *should* live their lives. Both sides, the extremes especailly, want to control and social engineer, imo. Twiddle dee twiddle dum - in a lot of ways, imo :-)

The thing is, sunsong, that your first sarcastic response, "Women must be forced, by law, to marry - and never allowed to divorce. Society is doomed otherwise." isn't even supported by what Schlafly said.

I mean, "forced to marry" is way out there in "gays in concentration camps" land as far as representing the supposed beliefs of the other side.

"Schlafly’s words say to me that she thinks being unmarried is bad and wrong. I don’t think that’s helpful."

It's entirely possible that I missed the words that she said that meant this. It's such a ridiculous statement that I would never assume that's what someone actually meant unless they were explicit about it.

OTOH, I've made observations myself that the sort of feminist who insists that women don't need men and speak of men in the context of damaging dependency is also likely to promote redistributive government. What's up with that?

Not that I'm saying at all that women do need men, particularly, but at the very least don't we need, want and look for partners?

"Both sides, the extremes especailly, want to control and social engineer, imo. Twiddle dee twiddle dum - in a lot of ways, imo :-) "

There is more than one axis... liberal/conservative is just one. Statist/libertarian is another. It's quite true that on the Statist extreme there are both liberals and conservatives. Probably people could be placed on other lines as well between communist and capitalist, for example. Certainly a statist could be either of those and I suppose a libertarian could be communist after a fashion, believing in some ideal state of nature where no one has personal possessions.

Not that I'm saying at all that women do need men, particularly, but at the very least don't we need, want and look for partners?

The one place where I do believe that women need men is in raising children. And it is best if the children are his. If a woman wants to live by herself, or live with another woman, or maybe even more than one woman, I am just fine with that.

But that is never really the issue. The real issue is when women try to raise kids without the father of the kids being closely involved.

I have mentioned above some of the societal costs of single motherhood. Part of these problems result from the fact that males are usually necessary to properly domesticate young males as they come of age. Most women just cannot do it. They often end up being a boy's best friend, while being unwilling, or unable, to set effective limits on the young males' behavior.

But maybe as important, we are talking about that single mothers get all sorts of support from other than the father living in the home. This is a dependency culture, and is not good for anyone involved.

She was wrong about one thing. Most recipients did not kick the man out of the house. Most of them never had him in the house to begin with.

A woman I went to college with went on to do social work in Oakland after graduation. She said it was normal to send an investigator around to the recipient's dwelling and find the employed father there living with his family. The welfare check was just spending money.

I've always wondered how much of single motherhood was driven by a government program that rewards a woman for staying single and pretending she doesn't know who the father is.

Freeman Hunt: I missed the part of the article that cites statistics showing Schlafly to be incorrect.

Irrelevant. Mrs. Schlafly is guilty of spreading "hate facts".

Years ago, when I was a typical 19 year old dumb-ass, I went to hear Mrs. Schlafly speak. I think all us hip kids decided it would be cool to go jeer at the old nazi-whackjob lady.

Let me correct myself - if anything, I was probably even stupider and smugger than the typical 19 year old knee-jerkishly leftist dumb-ass. But even I couldn't help but notice that the Crazy Hitler Lady was, um, pleasant and gracious in manner, and calm, rational, and objective in argument, while the (hostile) questioners were petulant, obnoxious, emotional - even hysterical - and seemed to have some trouble with logical thinking. I can't say it was an epiphany - I'm a a bit slow and the journey form leftist 'tard to wingnut crank took a while - but it did make the creaky little wheels begin to turn a bit.

When you look at the numbers, everyone was more likely to vote for Obama except for married men, and married women who don't have kids. So why were the married mothers voting for Obama? Schlafly can't use her "they got rid of the men, so now they have to have the government provide for them" line there.

Like I said before, this is the realm of partisan idiots - anyone who voted for the other side must be mentally disabled or have some dubious purpose. They can't possibly think that our side's ideas are wrong, or the other side's are right.

And it certainly is an interesting political tactic. A large segment of the population, unmarried women, are voting for the other side, so you call them all parasites and say they aren't voting for you because they don't have a man in their life to provide for them. That's gonna win those women over real quick.

I'm willing to bet that for every unmarried female/mother there might just well be an equally unmarried male father or someone in some status and that there is an amazingly high incidence of males NOT paying support...my wife's "x" never paid a nickle of support after the judge said "until further order of the court"...he moved thorugh 6 different states to stay one step ahead. His bill with interest is now about $150,000...my point being that an unmarried woman with kids has a tough road and that her now gone S.O., to some extent plays a part...more than likely.

Assume an unmarried Mom has a job paying $10 per hour or $20,400 per year. Next the governor of Pennsylvania bestows free day care on her which costs $6,000 per kid. Next assume she has two kids in day care and gets $4,000 from the feds for the earned income tax credit.

When we add all this money up, she has an effective annual income of almost $40,000 or so but the govt's statisticians and social justice activists will report her as poverty level because they only count and recognize her job income of $20,400.

re: Your old and new talking point bs: I never said they didn't vote overwhelmingly for Obama, and reading through the comments here, I don't see anyone else who did. The problem here is her explanation for it - i.e. these unmarried women are parasites who voted democrat because, since they don't have a man in their life, they need the government to provide for them.

My point is, looking at the numbers provided by others here, only married men with and without kids, and married women without kids voted for McCain. Unmarried mothers, unmarried women without kids, married women with kids, and single men with and without kids all voted for Obama.

So what is Schlafly's reasoning for why all those groups, especially the married women with kids, voted Democrat?

"There's a reason ordinary people don't take the bleating of you mindless leftist drones seriously anymore."

And no, I'm not a "mindless leftist drone." I didn't vote for Obama. I didn't vote at all, because I didn't think either man showed me that they would be a good President. And with the other major election choice at the time being Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken . . . well, I didn't like my choices there either. But continue on, calling all the people who voted overwhelmingly for Obama parasites. That's one way to win them over.

I'm a liar? Point me to where anyone was saying, "Unmarried women didn't vote overwhelmingly for Obama, and Schlafly's a hateful bitch for saying they did!"

No one in here said that, the closest you could possibly come is aronamos saying "And she had the single women figure kind of high. Gallup had it at66-34."

So wow, he said it was slightly less overwhelming. And if some random idiot in here did deny it, apparently you take that to mean every single leftist was denying the numbers. You are a moron, sir.

Like I said, keep on calling a substantial group of voters parasites. Republicans (and right wingers who will always say "I'm not a Republican" then vote straight R every time) look like they are trying to do everything in their power to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. You have some of the most promising electoral circumstances in recent memory, yet you run nuts like Sharron Angle, have Boehner talking about things like cutting Social Security and Medicare (yeah, it may be necessary, but it's also committing political suicide to be talking about it right before an election) and now calling people you supposedly want to vote for you parasites. Going into 2010, I wondered how it would be possible for Republicans to blow it with the wave of fierce anti-Democrat sentiment throughout the country. But, you guys just seem to have a knack for it.

I didn't vote at all, because I didn't think either man showed me that they would be a good President. And with the other major election choice at the time being Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken... [Bolded emphasis added.]

So, the ballot at your local polling station only listed candidates for POTUS and candidates for a U.S. Senate seat? Nothing and nobody else was up for election where you live?

I mean, for crying out loud. Do people actually not know, much less understand, that the majority of elected positions aren't national ones? That, to the contrary, they're local ones? Hell, there are even more "hyper-local" positions than state ones with regard to which the average citizen is responsible (oops, sorry, too prescriptive: I mean, eligible) for registering a vote.

It's your choice, of course. But don't be surprised if I judge you an ass for not even acknowledging ALL of the categories in which you have a choice, exercised or no.

The president is not your mayor. (Your governor isn't, either). Your U.S. Senator--either one--is not your state senator. (Nor is he or she a county, township, parish, city or town official, either, depending on applicable forms of governments.) Your U.S. Rep. is not your state rep. Etc. Etc. Etc.

And I could continue this analogy with regard to appointed positions, requiring confirmations and/or not, from federal to local.

Check yourself and get yourself educated at what used to be considered a very basic level, civics-wise, and I mean that no matter who the hell you are and no matter your affiliations.

What I would say to those who truly do want to register a "these candidates are so bad I wouldn't be caught dead voting for any of them" is this:

Take the time, MAKE the time, to go to the polls anyway.

I would think that under ordinary circumstances there would be at least one or two local races you could at least make an effort at having an interest in, picking a candidate (nose-holdingly or not), and then going to the polls and posting a vote, so to speak. Meanwhile, you've left everything else blank, as you prefer.

Or, you could go to the polls and write in candidates for the national, federal candidates, if that's all you care about, and leave the rest blank.

Or you could write in something for everything.

At a bare minimum, regardless of what strategy you chose, you will have demonstrated that you can be bothered to think about what it is you're going to do AND to have gotten your ass to a polling place on election day, regardless of level of discouragement or inconvenience.

If nothing else, this would give SOME purchase, SOME credibility for commenting about voting at blogs (at least those where other commenters take voting at least somewhat seriously, at least sporadically).

Personally, I think that effort might, maybe, perhaps result in at least a little more than just that "if nothing else" ... .

"His bill with interest is now about $150,000...my point being that an unmarried woman with kids has a tough road and that her now gone S.O., to some extent plays a part...more than likely."

So, HD... was it his choice to leave?

Men are thrust into poverty due to divorce as surely as women are.

This is why it *ought* to matter if one party or the other is "at fault" and why men should attempt to gain custody instead of simply going with custom just because it's custom and letting her take the kids. No one should have the right to destroy you financially just because they don't like playing house any more.

I am in Minneapolis, in the District that elects Keith Ellison. I think it's pretty safe to say, that if I wished to vote for a Republican in anything other than a statewide election, it would not matter.

AC

Apparently, the only thing you have to bring to the table is insults, and accusations based on no evidence. I am a left-leaning moderate. If you forced me to vote in the last election, yes, I would have chosen Obama. I am a social liberal, economic moderate. Meaning, I am not thrilled about all the spending, but I'm not in a "Oh my God, Obama is destroying America!!!" mindset either. I mainly avoid the Republican party these days because they have felt the need to go all in on the social conservative issues, rather than being actual conservatives: i.e. not only keeping the government out of our finances, but also our personal lives. Not to mention that the Republicans that have held office are spineless hypocrites. They rail against government spending, but since they don't want to risk losing the votes that would come with cutting the big social programs, they just cut taxes, making the problem worse.

Of course, none of this matters, when your only response to my arguments is to make broad generalizations about how all the liberals here were denying that unmarried women voted overwhelmingly for Obama (an incredibly stupid generalization, seeing as no one said anything like that, and the fact that the issue here was Schlafly's idiotic explanation for this). Then again, I don't know why I'm trying to reason with you, as it's clear you have already resorted to the childish name-calling stage of argument.

Obama: “We need to pass it for Leslie Macko who lost her job at a fitness center last year and has been looking for work ever since because she eligible for only a few more weeks of unemployment, she’s doing what she thought she’d never have to do. She’s turning to her father for financial support.”

OH MY DOG.

See... this is Obama, talking about the government taking care of a woman so that her family doesn't have to. Imploring us to care about the plight of this person, to jerk our heart strings and give her *our* money.

Heaven help us when it is portrayed as shameful, by the president of the United States, for a woman to get help from her father instead of the government. How demeaning to get help from family! How sad to have to turn to those who love you and who know how hard you are looking for work and how worthy you are of help and to whom you can return favors and support.

Oh, the scoffing when some right-wing-nut extremist suggests that the government (in the form of liberals or Obama, whatev...) wants us dependent on government, but there it is.

How shameful to get help from your dad.

And it's hardly the first time anyone has said something like this. I recall, and I think it was Elinor Clift, many years ago talking about the *tragedy* that someone was forced to help support their aging parent since the government was too stingy.

I don't know how anyone can really say that there has not been an effort, an actual effort, to get us to view government as the proper source of support and to stop us thinking that family should support family or that family is in any way important or that the act of supporting someone is anything other than shameful or chauvinistically oppressive.

It's so pervasive that Obama made this point as if it *supported* his plea instead of undermined it.

For those without much knowledge of how strongly Democratic Minneapolis is:

12 of 13 City Council members are DFL. The 13th? Green Party.

In the 2008 elections, Keith Ellison got 70% of the vote. How many other places would a Muslim get those numbers?

From Wiki, in the 2009 municipal elections, DFL won 23 of the 25 seats, with the Green Party winning the other two.

So Reader, once again, even if the Republican Party ran a decent candidate (which, given the setting, is not very likely), I didn't think it would make much difference.

So, with all other potential seats pretty much guaranteed to go DFL, I saw Obama vs. McCain, and Coleman vs. Franken. I didn't want to vote for either in those elections, so why waste my time voting on the other ones?

Excuse me Reader? "Take the time, MAKE the time, to go to the polls anyway." So, in an election where I have decided I didn't think any of the major candidates deserved my vote, I should go there and "hold my nose" and vote for one of them? In the statewide elections, I had choices between two Presidential candidates, neither of which I thought would be a good President. In the Senate election, I had two choices, both of which I thought were horrible choices. In the case of Minneapolis elections, I had the choice between a DFL candidate assured to get around 60% of the vote, a couple other fringe DFL candidates, a Green Party candidate, and a couple independents.

"At a bare minimum, regardless of what strategy you chose, you will have demonstrated that you can be bothered to think about what it is you're going to do AND to have gotten your ass to a polling place on election day, regardless of level of discouragement or inconvenience." - I did "bother to think" about those elections, probably a whole lot more than the average voter. You're going to insult me because I didn't think either McCain or Obama, or Franken or Coleman, deserved my vote? Supposedly, you'd rather I voted for someone, anyone, rather than decide I dislike all candidates?

But I'm a "joke" for not being enthused about spending my time standing in line to vote in those elections? Good lord, you're a self-righteous prick.

Every time I go to vote there is a boat load of judges on the ballot (I don't approve of voting for judges but I do anyhow) possibly a sheriff and several funding referendum sorts of things.

On the last one I recall they wanted to know about bond funding local trail construction, which I probably voted against, but which must have passed because they seem to be building it anyhow, and also a measure to allow vets free car registration, though I'm not sure how that works and haven't tried to get free tags for my car.

It's a lot of monkey business to read through, but I do and I actually, occasionally, vote yes on funding something.

When I voted as a college student I was asked to vote on city policy for trash collection and a couple of other things that I declined to vote for since I didn't feel it was right for me, as a temporary resident, to do so.

And I stand by my other implicit point, which I will now state explicitly: If you can't be bothered to go to the polls locally, at a bare minimum in terms of local governance, I can't be bothered to consider your pronouncements about national politics seriously. You're among the dangerous people: those who, at heart, desire--perhaps require--some Very Large National Arbiter To Decide Things In Your Favor.

Because, as you apparently well know, and to which philosophy you apparently subscribe, the alternative is just too damn dauntingly hard--the alternative including getting your ass to the polls, even if the only thing you do is to write in names in a couple of places.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with Minneapolis politics, maybe you are drunk, maybe you're just an asshole. My desire is "some Very Large National Arbiter To Decide Things In My Favor?" Because I see a couple national elections where I don't want to vote for any candidate, and local elections where the preferred DFL candidate is assured at least 60+% no matter what happens? And seeing those two factors, I don't want to spend a couple hours waiting in line behind all the people eager to vote for Obama?

Seriously, I just don't get you.

And concerning my "pronouncements" on national politics, I think my point was pretty simple. Saying that unmarried women are parasites who only vote Democrat because they need the government to provide for them since they "kicked their husbands out", is not exactly a winning strategy. Do you somehow disagree with this?

But I'm a "joke" for not being enthused about spending my time standing in line to vote in those elections?

Who the hell said you had to be "enthused"? Not I. Nor would I (as never I have). It seems to me that I was pointing out something that **explicitly does NOT** require being enthused, or any other emotion. In fact, I think I was advocating rather the opposite.

Alright, I have to get to bed. There's a referendum tomorrow concerning the number of crayons the local elementary schools will allot to each kindergartner. And, since I don't want Reader to look down on me, I must make the trek to the polls and cast my important vote.

James: I have not weighed in on the unmarried women thing, either in terms of my opinion or with regard to whatever you might think about that. That's not what this is about. You can twist however you like, and twist whatever however you like, but it isn't. I have been and only am addressing a very particular thing and only that thing, as stated explicitly from the start of my comments here tonight.

Speaking of addressing, you're still sidestepping a number of options I've brought up w/r/t to dragging one's ass to the polls on election day, even if it's inconvenient and discouraging.

"Saying that unmarried women are parasites who only vote Democrat because they need the government to provide for them since they "kicked their husbands out", is not exactly a winning strategy. Do you somehow disagree with this?"

I don't see it as a strategy at all. It's Schlafly being Schlafly and she's not running for anything.

The call for all good Republicans and particularly any of those who she endorsed to denounce her or else... well that *is* a strategy.

I think it's a pretty bad one. If it wasn't a bad idea for Republicans to denounce her, why would the Democrats try to force them to do it?

Bravo for Schlafly, too, for owning her own statement instead of backtracking. Even if a person disagrees with her opinion, at least she's not a wuss about it.

And double down on that for anyone unrelated to Schlafly who thinks they ought to backtrack *for* her, as if they could. People own their own opinions, not the opinions of other people. Apologizing for someone else makes you look even more stupid than a person who constantly pulls back their own statements looks.

Exhibit #1 - Obama - every time he or his administration contribute to the meme of throwing someone under a bus and particularly the hasty abandonment of Sherrod without even bothering to watch the posted video.

Heaven help us when it is portrayed as shameful, by the president of the United States, for a woman to get help from her father instead of the government. How demeaning to get help from family! How sad to have to turn to those who love you and who know how hard you are looking for work and how worthy you are of help and to whom you can return favors and support.

Well said. I've probably posted something similar to this over here in the past, but it bears repeating: Government should never be the avenue of first resort to someone in a personal crisis situation. Instead, these other avenues should be considered first:

1) Family2) Friends3) Church or private charity

Only after these three avenues have been exhausted should anyone even consider going to the government for help. (And if you've managed to alienate your family, friends and church to the point where they don't want to help you, perhaps it's time for some serious self-examination.)

Even voting for someone or something bound to lose lets your voice be heard as one more person representing an idea.

Well said, Synova. And James, this is the reason to go to the polls even in what might otherwise be considered a losing cause; even if the other side wins, doing so by a smaller margin might make them a little more cautious in crafting legislation. If they win by a landslide because the opposition gives up and stays home, they may feel that they have a "mandate" that really doesn't exist.

I vote: none of the above.

Pollo, I'd love to see that option available; if None of the Above wins, it's time for the parties to go back to the drawing board and try again (at their own expense, so that public money is not wasted in scheduling a new election).

There's a referendum tomorrow concerning the number of crayons the local elementary schools will allot to each kindergartner.

If such a trivial thing were to be put on on a ballot where I live, or anywhere I might live in future, you can bet your ass I'd drag my ass to the polls to register my vote [and my very presence] on that topic, and on that day. Then, because I get the point of local government, I'd pursue the why (and the who) behind such a dumb-ass thing being put on a ballot to begin with.

And, since I don't want Reader to look down on me, I must make the trek to the polls and cast my important vote.

I know you don't care what I think (why should you and who cares, anyway?--I don't). That doesn't matter. The important question is:

Why don't YOU care more about what YOU supposedly believe? And why do you think your not caring enough is no big deal?

I some how willed myself into reading all of AlphaLiberal comments... to see, just to see if he would/could ever use logic/reason in any ONE of his comments.

The one thing that liberals like AlphaLiberal remarkably demonstrate again and again is how emotional they are...it is almost like they never grew out of their teens.

AlphaLiberal, you forgot to add cute puppies to the list that Republicans hate. Btw, it takes the amazing chutzpah of a liberal to say that big cities are hated by Republicans when most big cities are filled with people who either flat out hate or are derisive of "Fly over country"..

It goes both ways, you blind bat.And big cities are hated so much because of how they help the DemocRATS come to power and steal every one's money, control every one's life (dont go to the school of your choice, dont eat those transfat foods, dont question me about taxes, I am your big nanny state Government)

Pathetic and nosey liberals are the reason for America's decline and incredible fault lines.

Dammit, I'm always late to the thread because I'min a different time zone. Sigh.But I did want to respond to AlphaLiberal's kind of sweet notion that Republicans are hating hatred who hate because they hate certain groups. Of course Democrats hate certain groups too, but that doesn't make them haters, just tolerant.So here's a list of the groups tolerant Democrats hate:Groups hated on by DemocratsChristiansSouthernersPeople from small townsEmployersPeople who work for corporationsPeople in the financial services industryPeople in the oil industryWhite menAlaskansFarmersPlumbersWomen who don't vote DemocraticBlack people who don't vote DemocraticBlue collar workersFat peoplePeople with Midwestern accentsPeople who shop at Wal-MartMembers of the militaryConservativesLibertariansLegal immigrantsPeople who believe in free speechPeople who work for companies they don't like

Schafly was just stating the obvious. Raising children is a lot of work, and two parents really help. Sometimes it because a tag-team effort. But "unwed mothers on welfare" is almost a tautology, as Married Women, with their Husbands in the house, are discouraged from welfare. Thus, before the mid-60's Blacks had a higher marriage rate and lower divorce rate than Whites. But AFDC encouraged men to leave their families so the family could get welfare.

We can thank feminism for many things, and one is this: before microwave popcorn, a batch of popcorn made on the stove had unpopped kernels. We called them "Old Maids". Now we call them "Career Women."

What did Margaret Thatcher say about socialism? It isn't as much fun when you run out of others peoples money to spend. Why should I support a single woman who decides to have a child out of wedlock? And the vast majority of teen mothers have partners 5 or 6 years older than they. In most states that should be some form of rape, but is rarely prosecuted.

James at 7/30/10 9:55 PM:have Boehner talking about things like cutting Social Security and Medicare

James at 7/31/10 12:25 AM:They rail against government spending, but since they don't want to risk losing the votes that would come with cutting the big social programs, they just cut taxes, making the problem worse.

James, one of the trademark characteristics of you mindless leftist drones is that you don't bother keeping up with the criticisms you bleat from one comment to the next.